Economists' attempts to forecast the outcome of the World Cup are a harmless exercise in seeking publicity. All the same, consultancy firm PwC, limbering up for Brazil, could have found space in its 10-page analysis to tell us how its "PwC World Cup Index" performed at launch four years ago at South Africa 2010. Short answer: lamentably.

"The favourite must be Brazil," opined PwC then, as now. The South Americans lost their quarter-final. "Germany, Italy and Argentina are also strong contenders," said the number-crunchers in 2010, hedging their bets and attempting to cover many bases. None of that trio reached the final. Italy even managed to finish bottom of a group that included New Zealand.

"Cameroon and Nigeria also have the potential to do relatively well in 2010," continued PwC. Both finished bottom of their groups, with Cameroon losing all its games. PwC's 2010 study in econometrics also came up with this shocker: "England remain a good bet for reaching the quarter-finals." No, that was a very unsafe bet: the model did not foresee the horror of Bloemfontein and the 4-1 defeat at the hands of Germany in the last 16.

As for eventual winners Spain, PwC struck a sceptical note. "Spain has been a historic underperformer (notably when playing at home in 1982) that needs to do better this time to justify its second place in the current Fifa world rankings." Losing finalists Holland didn't even get a mention among PwC's list of potential outperformers.

"It is difficult to produce reliable forecasts of the outcomes of the 2014 World Cup based on econometrics alone," concludes PwC this time. Yes, you demonstrated that last time.